The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors (BOS) was expected to take up cannabis cultivation at their next regular meeting on April 12. At this time it appears the matter will be put off until April 19th at the earliest because the Cannabis Cultivation Choices Committee has failed to reach agreement on some of their recommendations.

Last December, the BOS approved adding a new chapter to the County Code creating the “Medical Cannabis Cultivation Licensing Program” (MCCLP). They also approved two categories of commercial cannabis cultivation and extended the term of their 13 member Cannabis Cultivation Choices Committee (C4). They asked the committee to provide additional recommendations for indoor and outdoor cultivation as well as to consider other issues related to business of medical cannabis like processing, distribution, transport, testing, etc.

County Counsel Dana McCrae and her Chief Assistant Jason Heath, drafted what may have been the first local licensing ordinance in the state. At the time, it was offered as a “foundation” with more “floors” and “finishing work” to come. 7.128 was adopted unanimously by the BOS but the previous ordinance 7.126 remained on the books.

Additional confusion occurred after conflicting reports recently emerged, allegedly from the Sheriff’s office, giving the impression that the 7.126 would still be enforced but somewhat differently this year.

Many County growers are anxious to learn exactly what the local legal framework will be as they prepare for their next growing season. Some are hoping to be ready to submit applications for state licenses when they become available. A local license is a prerequisite.

Memorable 25th Meeting of the C4

Despite meeting weekly, sometimes for 6 and 7 hours, the C4 had not reached agreement on all elements of their cultivation recommendations as of their last regular meeting on Tuesday March 29th.

Operating under a “nothing is final until it’s all final” approach and earnestly trying to reach the widest possible consensus, the C4 meetings have at times become tense as members circled back to issues thought resolved or they dealt with misunderstandings and disagreements about the process for addressing various sticking points.

The last several meetings of the C4 were among their most contentious, with their last meeting, March 29th, almost ending before it started. Ultimately they met until late at night, long after most of the public had left.

A number of C4 members expressed dissatisfaction that no final language options were available before or even at the meeting. They agreed to proceed and did take a number of up or down votes but by their scheduled adjournment time of 7pm they were still considering a list of remaining unresolved issues. They chose to postpone decisions on some but to order dinner and continue to work on others in hopes of finalizing something they could agree to send to the BOS.

Among the known remaining issues unresolved were those dealing with the smallest grow sizes affecting the largest number of local growers. Among their final votes late Tuesday, the committee split 6-7 on a proposal to license “home based cultivation”.

As a result, many of the county’s oldest small growers and established collectives would be banned outright and become ineligible for state licensing.

The C4 will meet again at 12:30 next Tuesday, Apr 12th, at the Simpklns Center with a goal of getting back on the BOS agenda by April 19th.

]]>https://scm2.net/2016/04/07/cannabis-cultivation-confusion-continues/feed/0slv news networkOver 250 Respond To Growers Surveyhttps://scm2.net/2016/03/22/over-250-respond-to-growers-survey/
https://scm2.net/2016/03/22/over-250-respond-to-growers-survey/#respondTue, 22 Mar 2016 03:31:38 +0000http://scm2.net/?p=41Continue reading →]]>I’ve begun tabulating the over 250 responses to the Santa Cruz County Cultivators Outreach Survey 2016 conducted since early February through March 21. Thank you to all who participated and helped bring attention to the effort.

There’s a ton of information. The value or usefulness will depend, in large part, upon the perspective of the reviewer.

Among the broad strokes:

District 5 (SLV) is home to about half of all the growers,

35% of grows are on parcels zoned R (Residential)

72% if you include RR and RA

Small residential grows are spread throughout the County:

33% in District 1

20% in District 2

12%,in District 3

4% in District 4

28% in District 5

District 4 boasts over 25% of the larger producers by plant count.

5% grow over 1000 plants

43% grow less than 50 plants

63% grow less than 100 plants

87% get their water from a local water district or dedicated well

Over 50% of indoor and 48% of outdoor grows are on parcels under one acre

60% of all grows take up less than 500 sq ft

11% use a generator as the primary source of power

I’ll be taking a deeper look at the numbers in the days ahead and if there is a specific slice of information you would like, let me know and I’ll try and provide it.